[CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

Thu Oct 6 01:03:42 EDT 2016

I fully agree with your statement Ron. I do not defend RDXC acting I just 
want our discussion to turm into what can be done to stop power cheating.

73, Igor UA9CDC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power

> Igor,
>
>
> With all due respect, IMHO, fighting alleged "cheating" by not contacting 
> the accused, asking him for his side of the story, and worse, simply flat 
> out telling him he's a cheater with no allowance for other variables or 
> giving him any option to plead his case or appeal... is as bad or even 
> worse than someone turning their amp on and claiming that they didn't.
>
>
> To put it bluntly:  If you're going to accuse someone of as serious an 
> ethical lapse as cheating, you have to give than an opportunity to defend 
> themselves.  You can't be judge, jury and executioner.
>
>
> And yes, I speak from experience.  I once did just that in a local contest 
> I was involved in, many years ago.  While I don't believe, then or now, 
> that I was wrong, I did get my fingers singed for not giving the alleged 
> perpetrator an opportunity to explain himself.  It was embarrassing to say 
> the least, but I have no one to blame for my error (in how I handled the 
> situation) than myself.
>
>
> So in this case, I do not say that the RDXC committee is wrong... or is 
> right.  I do say that before reclassifying or disqualifying a log entry, 
> they at least owe the alleged a chance to explain or defend himself.
>
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
>
> On 10/05/16, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>
> Hi Kelly,
> I am not arguing with every acknowledged expert on this forum. I am just
> trying to summon these experts to suggest the method of fighting power
> cheating. Are there tools other then RBN to hunt cheaters? Can RBN be used
> in conjunction with other tools (whatever) to get reliable results? If 
> there
> are no methods of control then why do we have power categories that lend
> themselves for cheating?
> Do we want to fight power cheating or do we want to let cheaters carry on?
> These are more important questions in my opinion then whether or not some
> contest sponsor were unfair to some participants.
> BTW P3F was not the only one who was reclassified to higher power 
> category.
> I am not suggesting we use HIS case. I am suggesting we use this 
> opportunity
> to discuss how power cheating can be dealt with.
> You say "To establish RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining 
> power
> cheating — were it even possible — would require extensive, controlled
> experimentation" which I read - "we do not have reliable means of
> determining power cheating yet". Does it mean we give up and let it 
> blossom?
>
> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> As every acknowledged expert on this forum has pointed out, so many
> variables contribute to differences in signal strength that pinpointing a
> power difference as the sole cause, based only on simplistic RBN analysis,
> is absurd.
>
> Using an absurd approach in the absence of one that isn’t is beyond
> ludicrous. It is patently unfair.
>
> That the RDXC won’t respond, that it apparently moved the goalposts every
> time it was challenged (from constant power cheating on all bands to
> cheating only on some bands to cheating only on some bands for periods 
> here
> and there) certainly suggests there’s more to this than a simple
> misunderstanding of data.
>
> It’s like the Salem witch hunt, where officials would drown suspected
> witches: if you lived, you were a witch. If you died, congratulations, you
> weren’t a witch, but sorry about that whole ‘death' thing.
>
> To use P3F as a test case is as absurd as the drowning test. To establish
> RBN analysis as a reliable means of determining power cheating — were it
> even possible — would require extensive, controlled experimentation, not 
> the
> persecution of one amateur.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kelly,
>> I am saying that we should treat this case as a possibility to work out
>> universally accepted methods of pinpointing power violators. That is if 
>> we
>> want to keep power categories separate. And that is if we want to stop
>> proliferation of cheating. RDXC made an attempt. Some people found their
>> approach to be incorrect but nobody yet suggested no alternative.
>>
>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelly Taylor" <ve4xt at mymts.net>
>> To: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
>> Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC Entry Reclassified to High Power
>>
>>
>> Igor,
>>
>> Are you saying that just because we have not come up with a proven means
>> to determine power cheating, we should merely accept the results of an
>> irrefutably flawed analysis?
>>
>> Even the chief promoter and grand poobah of RBN technology has stated
>> using RBN analysis to determine power cheating is absurd.
>>
>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not going to be on any side of the argument. But we all know that
>>> power cheating exists and proliferates. It has become especially acute
>>> after the introduction of the new WRTC selection rules which allowed LP
>>> category compete against HP for the slot in WRTC.
>>>
>>> IMHO RDXC should be commended for pioneering the battle against power
>>> violations even though their attempt is not fully approved by some.
>>>
>>> RDXC can be criticized for their approach but can critics offer other
>>> reliable methods of fishing out power violators. I do not think that a
>>> 100% reliable method exists.
>>> Does it mean that contest community should not pay attention to power
>>> violations? I do not think so. Otherwise, why have different power
>>> categories in the rules when these rules cannot be enforced.
>>>
>>> The simple solution would be to drop separation by power and have all 
>>> the
>>> participants compete in one power category. But would such a radical
>>> step be to the benefit of the contest community? Would it increase
>>> participation? I think not.
>>> Then why don't we as a community use this precedent and try to find a
>>> solution? Let's work out methods of verification of power cheating that
>>> would be acceptable by a majority of the participants. This will be to
>>> the benefit of all the contest sponsors where power categories exist.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I have no relation to RDXC committee and not competing for
>>> slot in WRTC. I just like the art contesting and want make better.
>>>
>>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 